9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The reply on behalf of the Respondent refers to L.O.C. being issued consistent with the M.H.A. guidelines. However, the response does not elaborate upon whether the safeguards provided in the O.M. have indeed been complied with. This was necessary because no prosecution complaint was filed against the Petitioner under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. Further, scheduled offences have not been invoked in the charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch against the Petitioner. The charge sheet is only for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976. For the reasons, including but not restricted to the circumstance that no prosecution complaint is filed against the Petitioner and even the charge sheet which is filed in F.I.R. No.10/2022 is only limited to the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 and not to any of the scheduled crime under the P.M.L.A., the impugned L.O.C. will have to be quashed. Moreover, in this case, there is no allegation of any non-cooperation by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is enlarged on bail. The Court considered and modified the bail conditions for traveling outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in F.I.R. No.10/2022. Mr Lawande, learned counsel for the Petitioner, pointed out that from the perusal of F.I.R. and E.C.I.R., it is evident that only Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L.A.). The remaining crimes referred to in the F.I.R. and E.C.I.R. are not scheduled offences under the P.M.L.A. 7. On 02.02.2022, the J.M.F.C. at Mapusa enlarged the Petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions like not leaving the State of Goa without prior permission of the J.M.F.C. and reporting to the Crime Branch Police Station for 20 days from the date of the Petitioner enlargement on bail. There is no allegation about the Petitioner breaching any of the terms and conditions subject to which he was enlarged on bail. 8. On 03.02.2022 and 04.02.2022, the Respondent recorded the Petitioner's statement under Section 50(2) of the P.M.L.A. To our pointed query as to whether there was any instance of the Petitioner not cooperating with the Respondent in the investigations in the E.C.I.R., Mr Karpe learned Special Public Prosecutor responded by stating that there were no such instances. Mr Karpe, however, subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 408 of I.P.C. or Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The charge sheet shows that the charges under Sections 420, 120-B, 408 of I.P.C. and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were not pressed against either the Petitioner or two other accused persons in the F.I.R. 13. On 09.02.2023, the J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, against the Petitioner and the two others. At this stage also, the Petitioner entered his appearance before the J.M.F.C. on 18.03.2023, the date the Petitioner was required to attend the J.M.F.C's Court after the charge sheet was registered as A.O.A. No.572/2022/F. 14. On 06.03.2023, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent to inform him whether any L.O.C. was indeed issued and, if so, to withdraw the said L.O.C. now that it was evident that no criminal prosecution into a scheduled offence was pending against the Petitioner. However, there was no response from the Respondent. Mr Lawande submitted that since the L.O.C. was issued concerning the two other accused persons in F.I.R. and E.C.I.R. referred to above, the Petitioner genuinely appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now expressed is based upon no credible material. 19. Mr Karpe also urged that the Respondents are continuing with the investigation and that information obtained is already shared with the Crime Branch (predicate agency) having regard to Section 66(2) of the P.M.L.A. Mr Karpe submitted that based on this shared information, there is a high possibility that the predicate agency may file a supplementary charge sheet invoking scheduled offence against the Petitioner. Again, given the facts discussed above, we are afraid that, in the absence of any supplementary charge sheet and based upon such possibilities, the L.O.C. cannot continue to operate. 20. The Ministry of Home Affairs relying upon certain decisions of the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Assistant Director and others in W.P. (Crl.) No.1315/2008, decided on 11.08.2010, has issued an Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 in the context of the issue of L.O.C.s. This O.M. provides that recourse to L.O.C. should be taken in cognizable offences under I.P.C. or other penal laws. The details regarding the reason for the opening of L.O.C. invariably be provided in the prescribed format, without which the subject of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the Delhi High Court ruled there was no basis for apprehension. 25. Dr. Bavaguthuraghuram Shetty (supra) was a case where the Petitioner was involved in the offence of defrauding public sector banks to the extent of 2800 crores. There ₹ was ample material on record to sustain apprehension based upon which the L.O.C. was issued. Based on inputs received, the Respondent in the said case that the Petitioner's departure would be detrimental to the bilateral relations with a foreign country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India on the issue of L.O.C. The Court had before it a forensic audit report based on which there were apprehensions about the Petitioner's liability to public sector banks exceeding ₹50000 crores. There was material about the diversion of funds, misrepresentation of facts, and defrauding of various banks. 26. All such facts are not even comparable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is no allegation of any scheduled offence against the Petitioner. Even the Crime Branch, after the investigation, chose to file a charge sheet invoking only Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
